The Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday sought responses from the Punjab government and central investigating agencies on a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging that senior state government officials were involved in an alleged corruption network involving cash-for-transfer postings, favourable policy decisions, government tenders and other official approvals.
The petitioner alleged that the persons involved had access to the chief minister’s office and were allegedly operating a deeply rooted bribery network. It was further alleged that the network influenced the transfers and postings of IAS and police officials and facilitated tenders, permissions and licences for builders, land developers and other entrepreneurs. The petitioner also alleged that despite several complaints and representations, the Punjab DGP and the Vigilance Bureau had failed to follow Supreme Court directions regarding the registration of FIRs in cases involving cognisable offences.
The bench sought replies by September 3 from the Punjab government, the director general of police (DGP), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the chief director of the Punjab Vigilance Bureau and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Saraf told the court that, after examining the material available in the public domain and reports concerning the allegations, he submitted a detailed complaint to the Chief Director of the Punjab Vigilance Bureau on August 17.
No action had been taken on the complaint so far, according to the petition. The court also said that if the communications had indeed been sent by the ED, it would seek to know from the Punjab advocate general what stand the state government and the Punjab Police proposed to take and what action was contemplated on the communications.
During Thursday’s hearing, counsel for the ED informed the court that the agency had sent three communications to the Punjab DGP on July 24, July 31 and August 7. The PIL has sought an independent investigation into the allegations and requested that the matter be transferred to the CBI. The ED submitted that these communications were on similar lines to the allegations raised by the petitioner.
